CS848 Paper Review Form - Fall 2006

Paper Title:

Author(s):

1) Is the paper technically correct?
 [*] Yes
 [ ] Mostly (minor flaws, but mostly solid)
 [ ] No

2) Originality
 [ ] Very good (very novel, trailblazing work)
 [*] Good 
 [ ] Marginal (very incremental)
 [ ] Poor (little or nothing that is new)

3) Technical Depth
 [ ] Very good (comparable to best conference papers)
 [*] Good (comparable to typical conference papers)
 [ ] Marginal depth
 [ ] Little or no depth

4) Impact/Significance
 [ ] Very significant
 [*] Significant
 [ ] Marginal significance.
 [ ] Little or no significance.

5) Presentation
 [*] Very well written
 [ ] Generally well written
 [ ] Readable
 [ ] Needs considerable work
 [ ] Unacceptably bad

6) Overall Rating
 [ ] Strong accept (very high quality)
 [*] Accept (high quality - would argue for acceptance)
 [ ] Weak Accept (marginal, willing to accept but wouldn't argue for it)
 [ ] Weak Reject (marginal, probably reject)
 [ ] Reject (would argue for rejection)

7) Summary of the paper's main contribution and rationale
   for your recommendation. (1-2 paragraphs)
This paper argues that eager update replication is practical and more useful
compare to lazy replication. The authors propose and implement an eager 
replication protocol, and in the experiment we see that this new protocol
has low response time, low workload per node, acceptable communication 
overhead, and high scalability. 
Another  is the protocol is implemented as an extension to a real
database, PostgreSQL. Therefore the experiment result is very realistic.


8) List 1-3 strengths of the paper.  (1-2 sentences each,
identified as S1, S2, S3.)

S1: The Postgre-R design section in the paper is quite clear even to people 
who doesn't have much database background.  

9) List 1-3 weaknesses of the paper (1-2 sentences each,
identified as W1, W2, W3.)

W1: In the experiment section it will better to show the comparesion of this protocol 
with a lazy replication protocol.

10) Detailed comments for authors.
As almost all the researchers have been studying lazy replication, this paper goes to another
direction, which is more useful because we all want data be as consistent as possible. Many 
research shows that it is nor practical to implement earger replicaiton protocol but here in this
paper we see that the cost to gain consistency is quite reasonable. The presentation is quite 
clear, even for people who doesn't have much database background can understand the protocol.
The test result is quite charming and convincible, although it can be better if we can see the 
comparesion between eager and lazy replication in the figures.